This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trucks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of trucks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TrucksWikipedia:WikiProject TrucksTemplate:WikiProject TrucksTrucks articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The weight information in the infobox and narrative both put the vehicle weight as 1.5 tonnes, which is converted to 1.7 tons via template. However, the specifications for this vehicle in Army Technical Manuals TM 9-2800 (p. 194) describe the truck as a 1 1/2 "ton" vehicle. This and other technical manuals were listed in an earlier edit of the article, but have been removed for some reason. In addition, it seems that the proper use of this statistic according to the template is to enter the actual vehicle weight, not a nominal weight. The removed technical manuals indicate that the actual vehicle weight was in excess of 6000 lbs (3 tons). Also, because this is a US vehicle, units should be given in the US version of English measures and converted to metric, not the reverse. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 28 days ago12 comments5 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The original manual for the vehicle calls it "Bomb Service Truck M6 (Chevrolet)" on page 5, indicating that as a proper name. The n-grams are unconvincing as the M6 Bomb Service Truck is a bomb service truck, so the presence of the latter phrase doesn't indicate the former isn't the name. --Sable232 (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The guideline I quoted in the nomination says "When using a numerical model designation, the word following the designation should be left uncapitalized (for example, "M16 rifle" or "M109 howitzer") unless it is a proper noun." You're not claiming that "Bomb Service Truck" is a proper noun are you? More generally, the fact that it's lowercase even in the context of M6 in more than a few books means it doesn't meet the general criterion of "consistently capitalized in independent sources". Its manual is certainly not an independent source, so should be given less weight, not more. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also note that about half the time the M6 follows, and half the time precedes, the "bomb service truck". This is not how proper names behave. Dicklyon (talk) 01:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the link. I see it also has on that page "The bomb service truck is a 4-wheeled vehicle ...". So "bomb service truck" is not being treated as a proper name. Their convention seems to be to cap it when combined with the M6 designation. Our style convention is to not. And the other manual uses lowercase even with the M6. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Reviewing some other RM discussions, I find that sometimes people will quibble with "the word following the designation should be left uncapitalized ..." because it doesn't say "word or phrase". We should clearly update this, but I won't do so until after this RM closes, even will all the "light tank" etc. precedents. Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.